Getting rid of Putin is a highly desirable end.
Interesting that Henry Kissinger, who was Klaus Schwabs mentor, has made a statement recommending that Zelensky would be wise to de-escalate and negotiate for a peace agreement.
Yes, the very fact that Henry Kissinger says it, is all the warning needed that it is the last thing Zelensky should do.
Kissinger was responsible for terrible decisions of foreign policy of which America is still feeling the bad effects - and on top of it all, he’s Klaus Schwab’s mentor! That alone is a red light flashing.
Not every foreign action for which Kissinger is held responsible was bad. He did work for the downfall of Allende in Chile and his replacement with Pinochet, and for that he deserves credit.
He of the gravelly voice will be turning 99 in a couple of days. He has not become senile, but also not wise - not if the the supervillain Klaus Schwab is a product of his instruction.
This clip asks the question what would victory look like exactly? Wasting money on a proxy war with a possible nuclear war that isn’t attacking the US, UK and any other western country that isn’t Ukraine.
Yes, he is all those things, and I don’t know why he’s disagreeing with his fellow globalists, but because he is - for once I agree with him.
Who is it, Liz, that you agree with? About what in particular? (I have watched most of the video.)
Victory for Ukraine will be the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian soil. It would be more than victory, an absolute triumph, if it also means the fall of Putin.
I’m agreeing with Kissinger on this.
Yes, it would be great if Putin withdraws from Ukraine, but I think this will only happen through negotiations. As long as we keep supplying money and arms to Zelensky, he will keep escalating the war, and Putin will escalate back, till who knows what may happen - the U.S. gets involved with troops, starting WW3, and/or it goes nuclear?
Economies are already collapsing, famines are starting. Is it really worth sacrificing the welfare of the entire world just to “save” a region of Ukraine’s border?
So you think Ukraine should surrender?
Not surrender, but get serious about negotiating a settlement to cease hostilties. It would have to involve compromise, of course, but not total surrender to Russian control.
I agree with you that a negotiated settlement is desirable. But if NATO countries stop supporting Ukraine with money and arms Putin will have no reason to negotiate. He will conquer Ukraine. And after that? The Baltic states? And again NATO does nothing? Slovakia? Still nothing? Czechia? Still nothing? Poland? …
Maybe sweeten the deal with him by offering him benefits for peace, such as the terms he first requested, plus others. I’m no expert at negotiation, but surely even he could be brought to see the sense of a risk/benefit equation in his favor.
The tragedy is that apparently there’s no one in Bidens orbit that has the competence or the desire to attempt it.
Reward him for invading Ukraine? Wouldn’t that be signaling weakness? Wouldn’t it be an encouragement to him to invade a few more bordering states?
Chamberlain fed Czechoslovakia to Hitler to appease him in exactly that way, and it convinced Hitler that he could go ahead and seize more territory.
This article explains why this desire isn’t activable in any way.
I’m don’t think you’re making a convincing argument for this will be a good victory, as this article explains, which sort of Ukrainians are we fighting for?
As I have also written on another - related - thread:
Yazmin - Putin is our deeply evil nuclear-armed enemy. Not Ukraine, whatever its faults. Ukraine is no threat to the Western world. Putin is, and he must be defeated.
I am amazed that you do not perceive this!
Both of these articles make good points.
Delingpole describes my own experience, that “I’ve come to the conclusion late in life, having previously bought completely into the propaganda narrative of the Western media…I now realize that what we are being told about these various wars - be it Afghanistan or Iraq, or currently Ukraine, is not necessarily the objective truth…”
That Ukraine started the hostilities, not Russia. That Ukraine’s government is the product of U.S. (Victoria Nuland) interference, who are using it as a proxy against Russia, which is backfiring, like our anti-terror strategy in the Middle East did.
The second article’s conclusion mirrors my own also - that “ruin is what we all face, after two years of money printing combined with a sanctions policy that will push the European economies off a cliff…this is the price of a failed U.S. initiative to weaken Russia…Is it a price we are willing to pay?
Perhaps it is time to ask who is selling us this future, and for what purpose.”
Another interesting point brought up in the Delingpole interview is that twice, when Zelensky offered to negotiate with Russia, the E.U. and the U.S. discouraged this by sending him more money and arms to continue fighting, which he did.
So I think negotiations could very well have been successful, but the E.U. and U.S. have prevented it.